UPDATE: Somehow I missed that Matt Rosenberg already reported on Will's column earlier this week in his coverage of Bruce Ramsey's thoughts on the issue as well. I'm retarded.
****
George Will weighs in on the pending Supreme Court case regarding the Seattle School District and race-influenced admissions. He lands some solid punches on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ("often reversed but never in doubt") and on the district's highly controversial definition of racism, reported by Andrews Dad and covered by Stefan earlier this year (here and here):
The Supreme Court has said that all racial classifications by government are "presumptively invalid'' unless narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The district's repellent Web site revealed the interest that the district considers so compelling that it justifies racial preferences. Supreme Court deference to such race-mongering would make a mockery of the equal protection guarantee.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 02, 2006 11:52 AM | Email ThisThe question to Ivan and Bruce and others supporting the status quo.
Does the current institutional structure which
does not serve a good portion of low-income kids,
systematically subjugate this kids and using the school districts definition is racist?
I await the response of Ivan and Bruce.
Having read Will's column yesterday, now this posting, and prior posts and threads I'm starting to wonder why progressives are so against vouchers. Could the anti-voucher movement be an attempt at de facto segregation?
PS: Caprice Hollins
Progressives are not against vouchers; they are for unions. They are for unions because its a cash cow of contributions. Progressives are all about power and getting reelected, hence the need for never ending sources of cash: unions.
Progressives are only interested in power, themselves, and anyone who will assist them in obtaining/keeping power, anyone who will massage their massive egos. In the end, progressives are all about themselves.
Niggling matters such as underserved low income minorities are irrelevant, unless of course such minorities are good for votes. Unions and their cash will always trump public service, meeting public needs, minorities in the minds of progressives.
Such a pathetic, self absorbed, self centered view of life: its all about me, power and the cash to stay in power. Nauseating.
One of the great tradegies of the 20th Century was the decision by a group of professionals, teachers, that they were no longer professionals in any sense other than professional victims needing a union to protect them from accountability.
Most other professionals have no intention of being victims and disdain unions because they know their clients will only pay if value is delivered.
Public education will ultimately collapse and the blame will significantly rest on the decision by teachers that they were no longer professionals, but victims needing a union. The rest of the blame will be on public school leadership, state government for their go along, get along relationship with the teacher's unions.
Posted by: Hank on December 2, 2006 05:29 PMDoes anyone really care enough to take action ? (Time will tell)
Posted by: KS on December 2, 2006 08:13 PMIt's happening and will continue its path as long as no one tries to do anything about it ! Free speech - not without a fight !
The big question, of course, is why? Liberal philosophy is all about ''nurturing'' people who need help. The ''tax the rich'' crew can't yell loud enough that more money needs to go to Americans in need. Just not their money.
That may be unfair but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is ''income redistribution,'' that is big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed ''economic justice,'' things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security.
But a funny thing happened on the way to socialism. Americans who believe in ''income redistribution'' give 75 percent less to charity than Americans who don't, according to Brooks. That is a stunning differential.
I believe this is a religious thing. Secular-progressives believe in individual gratification, and that often takes money. Buying that jazzy new SUV and a vacation home can deplete disposable cash fast. If it's all about you -- then you are thinking about you -- not about poor Dave down the street.
But devoted Christians, Jews and Muslims are compelled to help the poor by their beliefs. Personal gratification is not a big theme in Scripture. Jesus was a huge ''help your neighbor'' guy. For J.C., it is all about Dave down the street, not the latest material possession.
The statistics say that religious Americans give four times more money to charity each year than secular people and are 23 times more likely to volunteer to help people than folks who never attend church. And here's another crushing stat: If liberals donated blood at the rate conservatives do, the nation's blood supply would rise 45 percent.
So in this season of giving, Christmas -- a word some liberals don't like to say -- it might be worth pondering just who is really looking out for the have-nots. The leftist media often portray conservatives as mean, cruel and insensitive to the plight of the downtrodden. But, as the tax returns of multimillionaires Dick Cheney and Al Gore prove, the media image is false. The vice president gives millions to charity, Mr. Gore very little.
So the next time you hear a big-government liberal bloviate about helping the poor, please trot out the statistics mentioned in this column. And then tell that person that in America today, giving money to charity seems to be the right thing. What's left is not even close.
© Copyright 2006 Sun-Times News Group | User Agreement and Privacy Policy